Uppity-Negro.com

Not that I don't do that whole handwaving, "this is so obvious it need not be specified" thing, but I ain't setting national policy. Or whatever the kids think they're doing with this, since I hear they don't actually expect it to take hold. By way of Pandagon, in The Advocate, House Republicans vow to vote on marriage ban before election:

Leading Republican House of Representatives members who were once unenthusiastic about President George W. Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples now say they plan to bring the idea to a vote just before next November's election. Senate Republicans have vowed to force a vote on their version of the Federal Marriage Amendment during the week of July 12, shortly before Democrats convene to nominate Massachusetts senator John Kerry as their candidate to unseat Bush. "We feel like marriage is under attack. Marriage is a spiritual bond between one man and one woman," House majority leader Tom DeLay, a Republican, said Wednesday. "I came to realize, in the end, we're going to have to do a constitutional amendment if we want to protect marriage."

[. . .] Privately, Republicans acknowledge they are eager to get [Kerry and Edwards] on the record opposing the amendment, because they believe such a vote would hurt them in the South and Midwest.

For a start, there's that "we" in the quote from DeLay. And the business about "under attack" (by whom?) and the desire to protect (from whom?). Yes, it's clear what he means from the passage, but the evasive way he phrases the sitch seems itself symptomatic of. . .

Sorry. Just slap me if I start doing that again. I'm just a wee bit frustrated with the whole deliberate vagueness thing.

Like in that second bit. Where "hurt" means "cost votes," presumably, but whose votes? And why do they think this will happen?

If I didn't know better -- come t'think of it, I don't -- I'd think they were trying to express their homophobia (or homo-hostile tendencies, if you prefer) in terms that make them feel good about themselves; they're defending something that's under attack. As opposed to writing discrimination into the Constitution, which just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Suppose it's a good sign that they feel the need to use the ego-boosting rhetoric. Or, that's just how everydamnthing gets publicly discussed these days, so everyone fills in the blanks with whatever interpretation works best for them.

I did ask you for the slapping, yes? I mean, this barely qualifies as typing, it's just noodling around at the keyboard. . .

Update: No, it's good news. More or less.